The piece is a PBS: Frontline Special titled Heat. It was written, produced and reported by Martin Smith. It was aired on October 21st, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is the now all too well known topic of climate change. One must keep in mind that this segment was aired on October 21st, 2008 when climate change and awareness was experiencing a resurgence in media attention. The piece explores the basics of global warming, including a brief history of increasing human CO2 emissions along with the difficulties that exist in reaching consensus on global caps. The problem presented in the film is one we already are aware of. What it does succeed in bringing to light however, is America’s addiction to coal. This addiction, is not one we can completely wean ourselves off of, it’s simply not possible. What is possible however, is taking steps now, to integrate more sustainable technologies in existing power production loops while seriously beginning to invest in other sources.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The narrative is presented much like most traditional documentaries featuring expert interviews along with news footage. What scientific information that is provided throughout the film is often introduced by influential experts and activists often lending more credibility to the argument presented. The footage within the film, particularly of the emissions conferences was really interesting. It truly highlighted the difficulties that exist in the politics of suggesting other countries reduce emissions while we ourselves refuse to change.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some of the key sustainability problems that the film draws out include realistically portraying our addiction to coal. It truly goes to show that we cannot simply cease coal usage, society as we know it would cease to function normally. Furthermore it detailed the political difficulties in establishing global caps on CO2 reduction. This of course stems from the fact that it is unthinkable to other countries to limit their own production, hamper their own golden age, while countries such as the United States and Europe were free to expand on a whim in the past and in some respects continue to do so today.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very compelled by many of the myths and difficulties that were brought to light regarding our reliance on coal. It truly convinced me that feasible, implementable sustainable initiatives must involve existing production loops. A complete revamp of existing infrastructure is near impossible based on our dependence on electricity. Instead sustainable technology must be introduced gradually incorporating the established framework, eventually working towards more sustainable production loops.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not entirely convinced by the proposal of “clean coal” and how many current politicians on both sides of the aisle tout it as the most feasible sustainable energy option. This claim however is largely misleading due to the fact that CO2 disposal technologies are not up to par with CO2 removal processes. That is, the technology exists to remove CO2 from plant emissions but what to do with this CO2 poses another set of challenges entirely.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why
The film would most likely be well received by individuals who believe in the existence of climate change. Those who are skeptical of climate change will not find any new evidence to possibly convince them. This of course is due to the fact that the documentary is relatively old.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
If more of the information presented in the film focused on points of intervention on the consumer level, the environmental education value would be much more substantial.
9. What kind of action points of intervention are suggested by the film. If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can’t imagine being effective.
The film really brings to light how deeply rooted we are physically and politically to coal. One of the prime examples presented in the film is the continued existence of the Capitol Power Plant which continues to burn coal to this day. Recent efforts to convert power production from coal to cleaner gas within the power plant were met with swift opposition from powerful Senators.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The film inspired me to find out more information on the possibility of “clean coal” the results were rather alarming. An article in the Clarion Ledger detailed the failure of constructing an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant in Australia. According to government officials who spearheading investment in the project said IGCC is simply not economically viable. The film also took a look at the developing economies in India and China which inspired me to explore power consumption patterns within these countries. As it turns out India too is plagued by high reliance on coal for energy. Electrification rates within the country were also different than I had initially expected with only 65% of the country receiving electricity. Links
11/15/11
PBS Frontline: Heat
1. Title, director and release year?
The piece is a PBS: Frontline Special titled Heat. It was written, produced and reported by Martin Smith. It was aired on October 21st, 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is the now all too well known topic of climate change. One must keep in mind that this segment was aired on October 21st, 2008 when climate change and awareness was experiencing a resurgence in media attention. The piece explores the basics of global warming, including a brief history of increasing human CO2 emissions along with the difficulties that exist in reaching consensus on global caps. The problem presented in the film is one we already are aware of. What it does succeed in bringing to light however, is America’s addiction to coal. This addiction, is not one we can completely wean ourselves off of, it’s simply not possible. What is possible however, is taking steps now, to integrate more sustainable technologies in existing power production loops while seriously beginning to invest in other sources.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The narrative is presented much like most traditional documentaries featuring expert interviews along with news footage. What scientific information that is provided throughout the film is often introduced by influential experts and activists often lending more credibility to the argument presented. The footage within the film, particularly of the emissions conferences was really interesting. It truly highlighted the difficulties that exist in the politics of suggesting other countries reduce emissions while we ourselves refuse to change.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Some of the key sustainability problems that the film draws out include realistically portraying our addiction to coal. It truly goes to show that we cannot simply cease coal usage, society as we know it would cease to function normally. Furthermore it detailed the political difficulties in establishing global caps on CO2 reduction. This of course stems from the fact that it is unthinkable to other countries to limit their own production, hamper their own golden age, while countries such as the United States and Europe were free to expand on a whim in the past and in some respects continue to do so today.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very compelled by many of the myths and difficulties that were brought to light regarding our reliance on coal. It truly convinced me that feasible, implementable sustainable initiatives must involve existing production loops. A complete revamp of existing infrastructure is near impossible based on our dependence on electricity. Instead sustainable technology must be introduced gradually incorporating the established framework, eventually working towards more sustainable production loops.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not entirely convinced by the proposal of “clean coal” and how many current politicians on both sides of the aisle tout it as the most feasible sustainable energy option. This claim however is largely misleading due to the fact that CO2 disposal technologies are not up to par with CO2 removal processes. That is, the technology exists to remove CO2 from plant emissions but what to do with this CO2 poses another set of challenges entirely.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why
The film would most likely be well received by individuals who believe in the existence of climate change. Those who are skeptical of climate change will not find any new evidence to possibly convince them. This of course is due to the fact that the documentary is relatively old.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
If more of the information presented in the film focused on points of intervention on the consumer level, the environmental education value would be much more substantial.
9. What kind of action points of intervention are suggested by the film. If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can’t imagine being effective.
The film really brings to light how deeply rooted we are physically and politically to coal. One of the prime examples presented in the film is the continued existence of the Capitol Power Plant which continues to burn coal to this day. Recent efforts to convert power production from coal to cleaner gas within the power plant were met with swift opposition from powerful Senators.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The film inspired me to find out more information on the possibility of “clean coal” the results were rather alarming. An article in the Clarion Ledger detailed the failure of constructing an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant in Australia. According to government officials who spearheading investment in the project said IGCC is simply not economically viable. The film also took a look at the developing economies in India and China which inspired me to explore power consumption patterns within these countries. As it turns out India too is plagued by high reliance on coal for energy. Electrification rates within the country were also different than I had initially expected with only 65% of the country receiving electricity.
Links
EIA. India Energy Data/Statistics. Rep. US Energy Information Administration, Aug. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www.eia.gov/cabs/India/Full.html>.
Watson, Will. ""Clean Coal" Idea a "Pipedream"" Clarionledger.com. Gannett, 14 Nov. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20111115/OPINION02/111150303/-Clean-coal-idea-pipedream-?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7COpinion%7Cp>.